Greenwald: Political harmony v. the rule of law: an easy choice for the political establishment

[babylonsister]

Glenn Greenwald
Saturday July 19, 2008 09:14 EDT
Political harmony v. the rule of law: an easy choice for the political establishment

(updated below - Update II)


Former Congressman Harold Ford appeared at the Netroots Nation conference yesterday, argued that Bush officials shouldn't be held accountable for crimes they committed while in office, and then insisted that Democrats shouldn't be expected to defend civil liberties and Constitutional rights because -- as one observer summarized Ford's point -- "the Constitution doesn't poll very well." In arguing against prosecutions for Bush lawbreaking, Ford said that Bush officials already have been subjected to accountability for their lawbreaking: "'I think that accountability was brought in 2006 when {the GOP} lost in the House and the Senate,' Ford said. 'And we have only eight more months of George W. Bush . . .'"

Regarding Ford's argument, casual_observer says in comments:

I think this is it, in crystallized form. "Accountability" equals loss of majority for one's party. Majority -- power -- is all that matters. 'Law' comes in a distant second, if it is considered at all.

Ford proudly terms himself a 'centrist' in the Democratic Party, but this position is radically un-democratic, and when viewed logically, is every bit as bad as the logic of Rove, Yoo, or Addington. It is anathema to a truly functioning democratic government.

That's certainly true, but it's hardly an uncommon view. Quite the contrary. I'd say that Ford's view is as much a shared, Bipartisan Article of Faith among our political class as any other single idea. Here's what The New Yorker's Jane Mayer reported last week during her Washington Post chat:

Albany New York: I've already ordered your book from Amazon, but am very interested in your take on why there's been no little effective political opposition to any of this Administration's initiatives. Is it a question of limited public awareness or interest, or a more political calculation that one shouldn't appear to be soft on terrorism?

Jane Mayer: Since you're in New York, let me tell you about a conversation I had with one of your senators, Chuck Schumer. When I asked him why, given his safe seat, and ostensible concern for civil liberties, he didn't speak out more against the Bush Administration's detention and interrogation programs, he said in essence that voters don't care about these issues. So, he said, he wasn't going to talk about them.

more...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/19/law/

[tbyg52]

1. Dear elected representatives:

I don't care if you think voters don't care about it, you don't have an option to ignore the Constitution. Go read your oath of office.

Edited to add that Pelosi apparently wiggled around (with a little help from Al Gore's appearance) her "Ask the Speaker" questions at Netroots Nation. I knew it was too good to be true.....
http://www.counterpunch.org/cummins07192008.html
http://www.askthespeaker.org/akira/ideafactory.do?mode=top

[Kaleko]

2. K & R for Glenn Greenwald hitting nail on head again

[billyoc]

3. Wow, I didn't know they swore an oath to poll well.

BTW, they SUCK AT IT. :grr: